Why aren't you buying?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Rates on fixed mortgages dropped to their lowest levels in decades this week after the Federal Reserve unveiled a massive bond-buying program to help spur economic growth.

Mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Tuesday the average rate for 30-year fixed loans fell to 4.17 percent from 4.24 percent last week. That's the lowest on records dating back to 1971.

The average rate on 15-year fixed loans fell to 3.57 percent from 3.63 percent. That's the lowest since the survey began in 1991.

The Fed detailed plans last week to buy $600 billion in Treasury bonds. On Wednesday, the central bank gave more details, saying it plans to purchase $105 billion in Treasurys over the next month. The extra demand means Treasurys will produce lower yields for investors. Mortgage rates tend to track those yields.

Mortgage rates have been at or near historic lows since April as investors, concerned about the health of the global economy, shift their money into Treasurys, pushing down rates on the bonds and consumer and business loans.

While more borrowers have refinanced their home loans, low rates have done little to boost the beleaguered housing market. Would-be buyers remain on the sidelines, too worried about their jobs or unable to qualify for a loan because of tighter credit standards. Others can't sell their own homes before buying another.
Home sales were the worst in decades this summer, and home prices fell in half of U.S. cities in the third quarter, the National Association of Realtors said Thursday.

To calculate average mortgage rates, Freddie Mac collects rates from lenders across the country on Monday through Wednesday of each week. Rates often fluctuate significantly, even within a single day.

Rates on five-year adjustable-rate mortgages fell to their lowest level in at least five years. They averaged 3.25 percent, down from 3.39 percent a week earlier. It is the lowest rate on records dating back to January 2005.

Rates on one-year adjustable-rate home loans were unchanged at 3.26.
The rates do not include add-on fees, known as points. One point is equal to 1 percent of the total loan amount.

The average fee for 30-year and 15-year fixed loans in Freddie Mac's survey was 0.8 point. It was 0.7 point for 1-year and five-year mortgages.

This is what America has lost!

riot! -click

In my opinion, we need to get back to that. Americans fight for what they believe in, don't sit their and blame everyone else like we've been doing for the last 3 years.

Who didn't see something like this...

By JACOB ADELMAN, Associated Press Jacob Adelman, Associated Press – 1 hr 51 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – Grocery store owners William and Esperanza Casco were making enough money to stay current on their mortgage, but when JPMorgan Chase & Co. offered a plan that reduced their payments, they figured they could use the extra cash and signed up.

The Cascos say they never missed a subsequent payment, so they were horrified when the bank decided the smaller payments weren't enough and foreclosed on their modest Long Beach home.
Their story is echoed across the country by people who claim — some in lawsuits — that banks didn't live up to their end of the deal when they agreed to trial mortgage modifications.

The suits add to a feeling among many struggling homeowners that they're getting little help from the part of the government's $700 billion Wall Street rescue that aimed to help them directly.

Indeed, Treasury statistics show that only about one-third of the nearly 1.4 million homeowners accepted into the government's payment reduction program over the past year have had their reductions made permanent.

"It is extremely unfair that someone like me and my wife who have owned our home for 17 years and never missed a payment could end up in foreclosure," Casco, 47, said in Spanish through an interpreter.

Chase spokesman Gary Kishner was unable to comment on whether Cascos had been current on their payments but insisted the bank had treated the couple fairly.

"We worked with the borrower to give him as many opportunities as possible to qualify for a modification," he said. "However, they were not able to do so and therefore we were forced to foreclose on the property."

Several federal lawsuits filed in Boston accuse major lenders of breach of contract under the government's Home Affordable Modification Program, in which banks agreed to participate as part of the bank bailout.

The lawsuits say the banks agreed under HAMP to grant permanent mortgage modifications to borrowers who make all payments during trial modifications.

Attorney Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh said several of the plaintiffs lost their homes after their payments reverted to their original sums that they were unable to pay. She said she believes tens of thousands of borrowers in Massachusetts alone could be covered by the suits if they get class-action status.

One of the lawsuits, against Bank of America Corp., was consolidated earlier this month with similar complaints in five other states, Kavanagh said.

Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton said in an e-mail that the lender will continue aggressively defending itself against the cases.

More lawsuits have been filed against other lenders elsewhere.

In San Francisco, the Housing and Economic Rights Advocates legal services group sued Chase, accusing the New York bank of profiting from collecting payments during long trial modifications that ultimately end in foreclosure.

"They're participating in the crisis they had helped to foment by refusing to honor loan modifications they had already agreed to," said attorney James C. Sturdevant, whose firm is assisting in the lawsuit.

Chase's Kishner said he could not comment on the pending litigation.
 
Joseph R. Mason, a professor at Louisiana State University's business school who has written widely on the subprime lending debacle, said he suspects the loan modification disputes are a legacy of the federal government's rush to stem the flow of foreclosures before it had adequate plans in place.
 
"These policymakers said, just go out and do this and don't let us worry about the details," he said. "These details are now what are coming to the fore in these modification cases."
 
Laurie Maggiano, policy director at the Treasury Department's Homeownership Preservation Office, said banks were encouraged to offer trial modifications based on interviews with borrowers about their incomes and expenses while they sorted out the paperwork to qualify for permanently reduced payments.
 
The banks were under no obligation to make trial modifications permanent until this June, when new regulations stopped loan servicers from offering the trials based on stated income, Maggiano said.
 
Now, incomes and other details are being fully vetted before trial periods, and borrowers are preapproved for a permanent modification as long as they make three trial period payments, she said.
 
She also said banks are only obliged to grant modifications if the investors who hold the mortgages also benefit from the modification, as mandated by the October 2008 legislation approving the bailout.
 
Those explanations provide little comfort to the Cascos.
 
"I think that banks are playing games with us," William Casco said.
 
Casco said his monthly mortgage payments to Washington Mutual Inc. went up to $2,765 when he refinanced his home in 2006 to pay for a new a meat counter at his store in the industrial Los Angeles suburb of South Gate.
 
Chase was in the process of acquiring Washington Mutual in January 2009 when Casco said it sent a note telling him he qualified for a lower forbearance rate. The El Salvador native sent the tax returns and business documents the bank was requesting.
 
His payment was reduced to $1,250, where it remained for several months until Chase told him to apply for a trial loan modification.
 
Again, Casco said, he sent Chase the documentation they requested. His payment rose to $2,363 in June, then returned to the forbearance rate in October.
 
Casco said he continued paying what he was asked until August 2010, when Chase told his family that they were $50,000 behind on their payments and put them into foreclosure.
 
The home has since been sold and Casco is currently fighting eviction. That has him considering joining an existing lawsuit against the bank or seeking support to file a suit on his own.

"I'm determined to do whatever it takes in order to keep my house," he said. "I feel that a great injustice has been done to my family."

Jobs Report Today

After today's jobs report i don't see any reason for the government to be spending (printing) $600,000,000,000.

Recovery takes time don't screw the pooch mr man!

What good is an artificial economy?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global stock markets staged an explosive rally Thursday, embracing a move by the Federal Reserve to try to rejuvenate the U.S. economy by buying $600 billion in Treasury bonds.
The Dow Jones industrial average reached its highest point in more than two years, and stocks surged from Tokyo to London.

Elsewhere around the world, economic dominoes began to fall: The dollar sank. Oil prices surged. And Asian countries raised fears that their currencies would rise relative to the dollar, making their exports more expensive.

And some fretted about the prospect of financial instability in Asia and other regions. But stock investors, at least, celebrated the Fed's move.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the bond purchases would drive down interest rates on mortgages and other borrowing. That could get individuals and businesses to borrow and spend and aid a U.S. economy stuck with 9.6 percent unemployment.

Two developments, in particular, seemed to cheer investors: In announcing its $600 billion bond-buying program, the Fed left the door open to further action later. And in an opinion piece published Thursday, Bernanke envisioned higher stock prices as part of "a virtuous circle." He defined it this way:
Lower interest rates on loans will encourage companies to borrow and expand. Cheaper mortgages will let more people buy or refinance. Higher stock prices will boost the wealth and confidence of both individuals and businesses. Spending will rise, lifting incomes, profits and economic growth.

"A light bulb has gone on" in investors' heads, said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight. "They're thinking: 'Maybe this will work.'"

The response to the bond-purchase program, dubbed "QE2" because it's the second round of what's called "quantitative easing," was powerful. It cut across all corners of global financial markets:

-- Stocks jumped 2 percent in London, 1.9 percent in Paris, 1.6 percent in Hong Kong, 2.2 percent in Tokyo. The Dow Jones industrial average hit its highest level since August 2008, rising nearly 220 points to 11,434. Lower interest rates could spur economic growth and also make stocks more attractive compared with Treasury bonds with puny yields. In India, stocks hit a record.

-- The dollar sank to a nine-month low against the euro and fell against the Japanese yen and the British pound. The Fed's bond purchases flood financial markets with dollars, diluting the dollar's value against other currencies.

-- Oil prices jumped $1.73 to $86 a barrel. Foreign buyers were attracted to oil because it's priced in dollars. Demand for oil tends to rise when the dollar's value falls, because it becomes a bargain for buyers using other currencies.

-- Gold prices hit a record high on fears the Fed's move will unleash inflation. Investors often seek sanctuary in gold, a tangible asset, when they fear that rising prices will erode the value of money.

-- China and other countries warned that the Fed risks destabilizing the global economy by printing more dollars, the currency of international commerce. "So long as the world shows no restraint in issuing reserve currencies such as the dollar ... the outcome will be what knowledgeable Westerners dread: Yet another crisis is inevitable," Xia Bin, an adviser to the People's Bank of China, wrote in a commentary.

-- Developing countries in Asia complained the money generated by the Fed purchases will join a flood of cash already pouring into the region in search of better returns. That money is pushing up their currencies and hurting their exporters. They also fear that a flood of new dollars will fan inflation, cause price bubbles in stocks and other assets and destabilize their financial systems.

As the Fed's new program drives down yields on U.S. Treasury bonds, many investors will shift money to other countries or riskier investments, such as stocks, that offer better returns.

Rising asset prices can be rewarding, at least in the short run. But over time, they raise the danger that speculators will drive prices of stocks, real estate or other assets so high that a crash, like the U.S. housing bust, becomes inevitable.

That fear is growing in Asia and elsewhere.
"These countries say, 'We cannot even absorb our own savings,'" says Marc Chandler, global head of currency strategy at the investment firm Brown Brothers Harriman. "Now we've got to handle the world's savings?"

They also worry that the "hot money" flooding into their economies will vanish once global investors find another fad to sink their money into. That would burst any bubbles in stocks or other assets, just as in the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.

In the United States, stocks have been rallying since late August, when Bernanke announced in a speech in Jackson Hole, Wyo., that the Fed was prepared to do more to spur economic growth if necessary.
Fed leaders think Wednesday's action will be the equivalent of a three-quarter-point reduction in the Fed's benchmark interest rate. In normal times, cutting that benchmark rate by three-quarters of a percentage point could give the economy a healthy jolt. But that option is unavailable now because the Fed has already pushed that rate near zero.

Even if the Fed succeeds in reducing long-term interest rates, that doesn't mean banks will automatically ramp up lending.

Mortgage rates have already touched a record low without reviving the housing market. Banks have tightened lending standards, so fewer people qualify for loans. Even consumers who do qualify are reluctant to take on more debt. And businesses are reluctant to borrow to hire and expand until they're confident the economy will pick up.

In making the $600 billion in bond purchases, the Fed essentially prints money. It doesn't increase the debt the Treasury Department sells. Rather, the purchases expand the pool of buyers for that debt by adding the Fed to the mix.

Mindful of the weak U.S. economy and high unemployment, some want the Fed to do more, not less.
Joseph Gagnon, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former Fed official, was unimpressed by Wednesday's announcement: "This is a small step in the right direction," he says. "But I view it as timid."

He would like to see the Fed buy twice the $75 billion in bonds that it plans to buy each month. He also suggests the Fed stop paying interest on money that banks have parked with the Fed. That might force them to step up lending.

The Fed made a big impact the first time it announced quantitative easing, in March 2009. Its purchase of $1.7 trillion in government bonds and mortgage securities calmed markets still jittery after the financial crisis of 2008. It sent the Dow soaring 16 percent over the next seven weeks. And the recession ended that June, economists say.

Among those who worry about the risk of inflation or speculative bubbles is Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Hoenig dissented from the Fed's latest move for those reasons.
Bernanke discounts such fears. In his opinion piece Thursday, he expressed confidence that the Fed has the tools to soak up the extra money when the time comes, without harming the economy.

"We have made all necessary preparations, and we are confident that we have the tools to unwind these policies at the appropriate time," Bernanke said in the article published in The Washington Post.

AP Business Writers Jeannine Aversa and Martin Crutsinger in Washington, Joe McDonald in Beijing and Sandy Shore in Denver contributed to this report.

Article - Terrible Idea!

Matthew Craft, AP Business Writer, On Wednesday November 3, 2010, 6:34 am EDT

The Federal Reserve is about to take a huge risk in hopes of getting the economy steaming along again. Nobody is sure it will work, and it may actually do damage.

The Fed is expected to announced today that it will buy $500 billion to $1 trillion in government debt, and drive already low long-term interest rates even lower. The central bank would buy the debt in chunks of $100 billion a month, probably starting immediately.

Economists call it "quantitative easing." It gets the name "QE2" -- like the ship -- because this would be the second round. The Fed spent about $1.7 trillion from 2008 to earlier this year to take bonds off the hands of banks and stabilize them.

Here's how it's supposed to work this time: The Fed buys Treasury bonds from banks, providing them cash to lend to customers. Buying so many bonds also lowers interest rates because demand for Treasurys leads to higher prices and lower yields. Interest rates are linked to yields. Lower rates encourage people to borrow money for a mortgage or another loan.

At the same time, lower interest rates make relatively safe investments like bonds and cash less appealing, so companies and investors take the cash and buy equipment or other investments, like stocks. The S&P 500 takes off and Americans celebrate with a shopping spree. Businesses see a rise in sales and begin hiring again, and a virtuous cycle of more spending and more hiring ensues.

But many analysts and even supporters of the plan see dangers. It could make the weak dollar even weaker and lead to trade disputes with other countries. It could lead bond traders to believe that higher inflation is on the way, and they could derail the Fed's efforts by pushing rates higher. Many investors argue that it may create bubbles as hedge funds and other speculators borrow cheaply and make even bigger bets on stocks, commodities and markets in developing countries like Brazil.

"It's a desperate act," says Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of the investment firm GMO. Grantham says it's a clear message from the Fed to the rest of the world: "The U.S. doesn't care if the dollar weakens."
Here is a look at the ways the Fed's strategy could backfire:

--DOLLAR DROP
As word trickled out over recent months that the Fed was planning a new round of bond purchases, the dollar sank. It hit a 15-year low to the Japanese yen Nov. 1. Why? In the simplest terms, a country that cuts interest rates makes its currency less attractive to the worlds' investors. The interest rate is also the investors' yield, the payout they receive. When that yield falls, the world's banks move their money into countries with higher rates. They may exchange U.S. dollars for Australian dollars then invest the money in higher-paying Australian bonds.

"The Fed aims to push up the prices of stocks, bonds, real estate, and you name it," says Bill O'Donnell, head of U.S. government bond strategy at the Royal Bank of Scotland. "Everything is going to go up but the dollar."

A drop in the dollar can help companies like Ford that sell their products abroad. When the dollar weakens against the euro, for example, one euro buys more dollars than before. Foreign customers notice the price of the Explorer they've been eyeing is lower in their currency, yet Ford still pockets the same number of dollars for every sale.

The downside is that a weakened dollar pinches people in the U.S. because anything produced in other countries becomes more expensive, like oranges from Spain or toys from China.
"Look around you," says Thomas Atteberry, a fund manager at First Pacific Advisors. "How many things can you find that were made in the U.S.A?"

--BLOWING BUBBLES
Buying bundles of Treasurys knocks down interest rates, making borrowing cheap. But it also motivates investors to move out of safe investments into riskier ones in search of better returns. The stock market, for instance, rises in value and everyone with some of their savings in stocks feels wealthier. Ideally, it produces what what economists call a "wealth effect": People who feel better off spend more.

The problem, according to some critics, is that cheap borrowing costs and buoyant markets make a fertile environment for bubbles, which eventually pop. "The effort to help the economy sets up another more dangerous bubble," says Grantham, who warned of Japan's surging real estate and stock markets in the 1980s, soaring Internet stocks in the 1990s and the housing market in the 2000s.
Stocks in developing countries are a likely candidate for the next bubble. Cash from Europe and the U.S. has plowed into emerging markets, such as Brazil and Chile, since the financial crisis, largely because these countries have less debt and faster economic growth than in the developed world.
Another concern: Hedge funds borrowing cheap money can magnify their bets, taking a loan at 2 percent to buy a security that's rising 10 percent. They sell the security, pay off the bank and pocket the rest. That's true whenever interest rates remain low. Falling rates allow speculators to borrow larger amounts. In the extreme, losses from hedge funds and other borrowers can put their banks at risk and leave governments to clean up the mess.

The game only works as long as the investment keeps climbing. When the bubble breaks, the fallout can devastate an economy.
"I think bubbles are the main villain in this piece," Grantham says.
Cheap debt provided the fuel for the housing bubble, allowing home buyers to take out larger loans on the belief that somebody else would buy the house at a higher price. Fed chief Ben Bernanke's answer, Grantham said, is to start the cycle over again by blowing a new bubble. "All they can do is replace one bubble with another one," he said.

--FALLING FLAT
For others in the bond market, the greatest worry isn't that the Fed will flood the economy with dollars and lets inflation run wild. It's that the Fed will prove too timid.
"Whether QE2 works or not will be decided by the bond market," says Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at Bank of Tokyo. "Without a big number that gets the market's attention, the program they announce could be dead on arrival."

News reports that the Fed may spend less than the $500 billion bond traders have been betting on has helped push long-term rates higher in the last three weeks. David Ader, head of government bond strategy at CRT Capital, sketches one scenario if the Fed shoots too small. Say the Fed announces a $250 billion plan. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which is used to set lending rates for mortgages and corporate loans, could jump from 2.6 percent to maybe 3.2 percent.

"If the Fed's efforts fail we suddenly look like Japan," Ader says. "Japan started off wimpishly, then did it again, and again and then they wound up losing a decade."